Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Evidence In Argumentation-Based Litigation (Alg): Comments On Xiong's And Du's Paper, Marko Novak
Evidence In Argumentation-Based Litigation (Alg): Comments On Xiong's And Du's Paper, Marko Novak
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Commentary On: Mark Weinstein’S “Warranting Evidence In Diverse Evidentiary Settings”, Maurice A. Finocchiaro
Commentary On: Mark Weinstein’S “Warranting Evidence In Diverse Evidentiary Settings”, Maurice A. Finocchiaro
OSSA Conference Archive
This commentary consists of three parts. The first attempts to summarize the main theme of Weinstein’s paper, insofar as I can understand it; the latter qualification is obvious and almost redundant, except that I must confess I found it very challenging to make sense of his essay. The second part of my commentary advances some negative criticism of his paper, by focusing on issues of conceptual clarity and argumentative cogency. The third part elaborates a positive appreciation of what seems to be Weinstein’s main claim; I do so mostly on the basis of things which he does not even mention, …
Warranting Evidence In Diverse Evidentiary Settings, Mark Weinstein
Warranting Evidence In Diverse Evidentiary Settings, Mark Weinstein
OSSA Conference Archive
Informal logic, is faced with the problematic of persuasive arguments in contexts where evidence is rich, diverse and preferentially selected on the basis of pre-established attitudes. This requires that the standard view of challenge by presenting inconsistent evidence be rethought. In this paper, I will argue that the solution is to focus less on evidence that contradicts claims and to confront the network of warrants that support the selecting and evaluating of evidentiary moves.
Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía
Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper is intended to answer the question of whether taste represents some kind of evidence in argumentation. To do this, the text is divided into four parts: first, the relationship between the technique of reconstruction and the definitions of argumentation is exposed. Second, different borderline cases that limit the use of this technique are discussed. Third, a dialogue where the argument appeals to taste is presented as another borderline case. Fourth, the role of taste as evidence (ground) for the analyzed argument is explored.
Assessing Evidence Relevance By Disallowing Assessment, John Licato, Michael Cooper
Assessing Evidence Relevance By Disallowing Assessment, John Licato, Michael Cooper
OSSA Conference Archive
Guidelines for assessing whether potential evidence is relevant to some argument tend to rely on criteria that are subject to well-known biasing effects. We describe a framework for argumentation that does not allow participants to directly decide whether evidence is potentially relevant to an argument---instead, evidence must prove its relevance through demonstration. This framework, called WG-A, is designed to translate into a dialogical game playable by minimally trained participants.
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari
OSSA Conference Archive
The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and science. Through the contributions of Wellman and Walton, we will see how the main method to question the expert’s testimony before a judge deferent to science is to question her personal integrity by using ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, using Alvin Goldman’s novice/expert problem, we will investigate if other manners of argumentative cross-examinations are possible.
Commentary On Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’S “Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited”, Paula Olmos
Commentary On Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’S “Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited”, Paula Olmos
OSSA Conference Archive
Commentary on Jarmila Bubikova-Moan’s “Unpacking the narrative-argumentative conundrum: story credibility revisited”
Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited, Jarmila Bubikova-Moan
Unpacking The Narrative-Argumentative Conundrum: Story Credibility Revisited, Jarmila Bubikova-Moan
OSSA Conference Archive
Building on a view of both narration and argumentation as dynamic concepts, the aim of this paper is to argue that story credibility remains a core issue in the debate on the argumentative quality of narratives, yet one that the dynamic perspective has not interrogated in sufficient detail. To illustrate, I will draw on empirical examples from research interviews with adult migrants to Norway on their learning and using Norwegian as a second language.
Comparing Two Models Of Evidence, Tone Kvernbekk
Comparing Two Models Of Evidence, Tone Kvernbekk
OSSA Conference Archive
The context for this paper is evidence-based practice (EBP). EBP is about production of desirable change. The evidence should come from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To make sense of RCT evidence it must be placed in an argument structure. I compare two different models, Toulmin and Cartwright, and investigate whether the two models can be merged into one. I shall argue that such merging is not feasible.
Mimetics In Judicial Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration, Paul Van Den Hoven
Mimetics In Judicial Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration, Paul Van Den Hoven
OSSA Conference Archive
To resolve a conflict of opinion regarding the past it is inevitable to present a reconstruction of that past, explicitly or implicitly. This we call the mimetic element. On an abstract level, a complete argumentation in the genus iudiciale requires a start that is mimetic and a follow-up that is diegetic. The question to be discussed is whether mimetic elements need to be formatted as sets of propositions and if so by whom.
Evidence-Based Practice And Toulmin, Tone Kvernbekk, Robert C. Pinto
Evidence-Based Practice And Toulmin, Tone Kvernbekk, Robert C. Pinto
OSSA Conference Archive
There is a vast literature on evidence-based practice (EBP) in education. Both critics of and adherents to EBP seem to think of evidence largely as quantitative data, serving as a foundation from which practice could and should be derived; in Toulminian terms, evidence is treated solely as data/grounds. I argue in this paper that it is better in educational reasoning to view the function of evidence as backing of the warrant.